User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2022-01

Hello, admin! Or is it just an "editor" you call yourself? Can you shed a light on the question about your "task list"? How do you choose a certain page or subject? Is it your choice or does someone "flag" things and topics for you and give you instructions of what is "accepted" as a change? I ask this because you removed facts and source backed additions on the page about Spirulina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GHuys (talk • contribs) 00:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi GHuys! I'm a bit confused by your question... what "task list" are you talking about? The one on my user page? I have it there for fun, and no other reason. :-) Anyway, to answer your question: you of course can create an article about anything on Wikipedia, but you must follow the guidelines on Verifiability and notability before you can do so. Otherwise, the work and time that you put into creating the content will be challenged, removed, or deleted. I highly recommend that you go through Wikipedia's new user tutorial and that you give this page a complete read-through, as they will both help you to become proficient with the project and answer you questions. If, after reading both tutorial pages, you have other questions or if I can help you with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm happy that you're here and that you decided to join us! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Sro23 - If it's chocolate or cherry, I'll absolutely accept! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• 2600:6C51:773F:2BB7:510F:5436:6D9E:1CDF (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (November 24, only)
• 2601:640:8580:DC00:3DA4:8ACE:E93:E26D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (December 26 only)

Why would somebody (November 24, only) want to misrepresent election predictions -- for example declaring 2016 Wisconsin (which Trump won) a "safe" win for Hillary Clinton? And similarly inaccurately changing a couple of 2020 predictions on Ohio from "Tossup" to "Lean R" and "Safe R"? These errors mostly survived for more than a month.

Why would somebody (December 26 only) want to change several state's vote counts in the 2016 presidential election, for example changing the Wisconsin winner from Trump to Clinton?

My guess is that these two IPs with similar edit styles are the same person. But what is the goal? And why these articles? I thought you and your talk page fans might have an answer. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi HouseOfChange! I apologize for the delay responding to your message here! Somehow, I managed to allow your message here to "slip through the cracks" and sit here without a response. The two IPv6 addresses you list above are from the same country, but different locations and from different ISPs. They're obviously causing disruption to similar articles, but it's hard to tell if they're likely the same person without examining their edits in-depth. HA! Are you really trying to seek an answer as to their motivations for doing this? The best answer to this? "Who knows, and who cares..." I wouldn't waste your time trying to come up with an answer as to "why", but instead focus on coming up with efficient and effective methods that will address the "how" (such as, "How urgent and important is this disruption and this situation?", "How likely are these two anonymous users the same person?", "How do I know this and how can I show this?", and "How can we put a stop to this kind of disruption and without causing any other innocent users from being affected?"). Sure, the edits are disruptive, and it does suck to see that at least a few of their edits managed to go unnoticed for over a month until it was caught and reverted, but the edits were made on November 24, and didn't occur again until after Christmas. So long as it doesn't come back, nor continue at a rate where administrative action outside of just blocking the IP user is necessary, I wouldn't worry about it too much. :-) We have much bigger "fish to fry" than these two users, and over much more urgent, pressing, and disruptive or egregious matters. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Oshwah, for your helpful reply. I plan to be alert for future edits that change numbers but give no citation--and to follow up editors posting "alternative facts." HouseOfChange (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

HouseOfChange - No problem! Always happy to help! Cool deal; the time that you spend patrolling and looking into suspicious or disruptive behaviors like this will be worth it - especially if you feel that this area is both interesting and fun for you. It'll provide you with a wealth of experience, and you'll find yourself becoming much more efficient and able to quickly identify and resolve these matters as time goes by, and as you take on more complex and difficult matters. It just takes time, but you'll definitely get there - just be okay with yourself and the fact that you'll need to occasionally ask questions or ask for help, get input, talk with someone for advice, and learn from the mistakes that you're absolutely inevitably going to me.

Remember that I've been on here for 15 years now (as of January 5, 2022 - just four days ago... lol); I will safely say to you, and with 100% confidence, that I've made more... more than my fair share of mistakes on Wikipedia over the years that I've been here. Just be okay with that; don't "fall into the trap" of feeling pressured or needing to compare yourself and your level of experience with others. Comparing yourself and your experience, for example, with mine - well... that would just be completely unfair on yourself to do. Focus on what you want to do on Wikipedia, what things you wish to become an expert on someday, and (most importantly) make sure that you enjoy what you're doing here. Always keep in mind that you're taking the very precious and limited amount of free time out of your day, and you're choosing to spend it here. There is absolutely no point in giving that precious time away like that if you're not getting the amount of enjoyment that you should be getting.

I wasn't (and still aren't) a "complete expert" when it comes to article creation, but that's because I found that I got much more enjoyment out of patrolling recent changes, finding disruptive edits and fixing them, handling repeat-offenders who continue to disrupt, and keeping an eye out for long-term abuse and working to identify and establish their patterns so that they could be handled quickly. Add 12 more years of experience to that, and boom - it's still fun to this day, and I love it! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I find it very funny that Wikipedia:WikiProject Oshwah exists, but what if you got a serious WikiProject and an article about you (see Wikipedia:Notability, albeit your page is literally protected from creation 😂), how would you feel? I mean, many people on Wikipedia already have an article, but not every article is worthy of a WikiProject. Maybe there should be a WikiProject Jimbo Wales? 207.81.187.41 (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @207.81.187.41 — Lol. The project is humorous, but what you said could happen in the future, if we do find reliable, secondary sources about Oshwah. …as of now, however, I think you would have to dig into some serious original research, and that is something Wikipedia is against, unfortunately… (see here)

…aaand to @Oshwah — hopefully, you do not mind my talk-page stalking. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

HA! That is funny, but they had to fully protect that page from creation due to... pretty nasty (but funny) abuse. If that happens (which it will not), you could totally request a have them remove that protection. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Johan (WMF) - Oh, goodness... Where do I even start? :-) First of all, I understand. Privacy laws are changing (which they really should be), and our duty is to protect the privacy of individuals - regardless of whether or not they have an account. I mean, the easy way to curb this whole thing is just to require users to register first, and remove any requirements that tie users to anything that checkusers can't look up. Obviously, that won't be an option. What concerns me? Sure, admins and checkusers will be "able to see the full IP addresses of users", but at the same time, they talk about having this access "logged" (at the time that I read through the whole thing). My first question is... "Umm.... How are they going to do that?" Give the ability for me to see IP addresses, but log when I do? That's a huge conflict within itself. Either we can see them, or we can't. And if you're going to log this access, then - assuming that we don't have to hit a "button" to see them - those logs are going to be flooded with entries that will be ridiculous and impossible to use for any reason. And assuming we do? Then what happens in terms of automation? Huggle? Does a "log" get created each time something is listed in the software? What about implementation? What about past edits? Are we going to mask those IP addresses? How do we access those? I have so many questions...... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! So some of this is in all the long documentation on Meta, and some of it is still going to be worked out, but a few points: there will probably be some kind of button on e.g. recent changes, but not so you'll have to click it individually. I assume the logs will be something to behold, yeah. Far more than the comparably very innocent CU logs. (: I don't have a good answer for Huggle yet, but that will have to be solved before implementation, obviously. Like a number of other things that aren't there yet. It won't be implemented retroactively – what's already there stays. I hope that helps a little bit. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Johan (WMF) - Thank you for the response! I appreciate it very much. :-) It helped summarize some points that are being discussed, as well as clarify what items are being considered. Requiring qualified users to now click on a button to reveal the IP address information of anonymous users on the current log, history, recent changes page, etc would start to get annoying... lol. If you're going to generate a log for each time that a user clicks to view this information, you're going to have no choice but to also create a log entry each time that an automated tool, such as Huggle, makes a query for this information using the API. Either way, it's going to create a large flood of logs that may or may not be useful as far as accountability and catching or enforcing a breach of policy is concerned.

I think that it would just be better if users with this "new user right" could just see the full IP address information of anonymous users on relevant pages by default (pretty much exactly the way that things are now). If this can't be considered, at least consider the creation of two user rights instead of one. One right would give the user the ability to see full IP address information on the current log page, history page, or other page, but after they explicitly click a button to reveal this information (and after they enter a reason, a required field - much like the CU tool). The other user right would simply give the user the ability to see the full IP information on all relevant pages by default (pretty much exactly the way that things are now). You could then have the more-restricted version of this user right assignable to qualified users by administrators, and then have the non-restrictive version automatically granted to administrators and checkusers as part of their tools (or automatically assign the more-restricted version to admins, the non-restrictive one to checkusers, etc).

If you're going to go with an IP-based masking approach, the encrypted hash should be displayed after a text description stating that this is an unregistered user. An example would be this entry on the edit history of an article:

20:02, 8 January 2022‎ (anonymous user) 23A4JF-L9RJ34-SOK94T-CN50DK-76NNY (talk | contribs)‎ m (18,571 bytes) (−320‎) (This is a test!) (undo)

Otherwise, this edit could be misinterpreted by other editors as being from an account with this chosen username, rather than a randomly-generated hash to mask the IP address of an anonymous user. Also, I would strongly encourage the implementation of an IP-based masking approach that also persists with the session if the user changes IP addresses. This would make it harder for those who abuse the project to purposefully change it. If they change their IP address but don't clear the cookies for their session, or if they clear the cookies for their session but remain on the same IP address as before, their hash wouldn't change as a result. One would have to both change their IP address and clear the cookies to their session in order for their hash to change. It's of course still possible for anyone to do this (and easily so), but regardless - it does add another level of difficulty with what one must do before their hash would change. Even if the difficulty increase is small, I'd definitely take "small" over "none at all".

Anyways, I'm going to go and read that project on the Meta wiki, and see what updates and changes have been made since the last time I was there. Thanks again for the notice, and your response. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Ping STei (WMF), so you're aware of this conversation and feedback. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I know it’s late, but has it really been 15 years since you created your account here?

I am just… actively impressed. You went from a mere newbie^{[citation needed]} who put his edit summaries in all caps to being one of Wikipedia’s most trusted and beloved administrators today.^{[citation needed]}

Here’s to hoping you have a wonderful Wikipedia experience ahead of you for the next 15 years, possibly more! — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 00:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

3PPYB6 - Not too late; just right! Thank you! I'm going to go with my wiki-mom and get my wiki-drivers permit, and I'll hopefully be able to get my wiki-license to drive a wiki-car next year! ;-) As long as I don't get into any more trouble at my wiki-High School, I think that everything will work out! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah — If that’s the case, then we just have to wait another week, and then Wikipedia can have a wiki-beer! — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

3PPYB6 - Nice! I'll buy the first round! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah — Wikipedia has turned 21! The wiki-beer has finally been unlocked! — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 19:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

3PPYB6] (Assuming that we both live in the US) YES! Cheers, 3PPYB6! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, A template in your user space is transcluded at WP:VAND. Per a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review#Two suggestions, it appears we got out a little out over our skis here, and I've been temporarily removing links to AARV/XRV from AN/ANI instructions. It's a little non-standard to link to a user space page from a policy page, so I wanted to get your OK to edit a page in your user space to remove that line. OK? Also, while I'm here, do you think we should move that to template space? Seems concise and useful, but also weird to link to it from a project space policy page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Floquenbeam - Go for it! And if you want to move that page from out of my user space to a template under that page, have at it! I meant to do that; I just didn't get around to it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Floquenbeam - Update: Rather than making you do these things, I've gone ahead and commented out the link to WP:ADRV on the template, moved the template to a more appropriate location, and updated the template link on the page to point to the new location. All set! Thanks for the message, and for the reminder that I needed to do that. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Well thanks Oshwah, that makes my life easier. Didn't mean to make work for you. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Floquenbeam - No worries at all. If anything, this was work that I was supposed to have gotten done months ago. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you remember anyone from when you first joined who still edits? It's only been ~8 months for me and a lot of those new 30/500 editors have left (or been blocked). – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi AssumeGoodWraith! That's... a good question. I'm sure that there are, but I can't think of any off the top of my head at the moment. I'd have to go through my oldest contributions to see who I interacted with, and then find out (unless I already know) if they're still active on Wikipedia to this day... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Gooday - I chanced upon this (created an hour ago) and didn't know what to do (per Db-u5 and bite, and allowing for any future CoI expansion of George Clarke (architect)). I saw you'd edited the Db template page and although I recognise your username, I don't think I've interacted with you previously, so randomly chosen. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rocknrollmancer! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your request for assistance. I've handled the matter. Without going into any detail, there was content on that page that made it necessary for me to suppress it entirely. Thanks for letting me know about the page! If you need anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know; I'll be more than happy to lend a hand! ;-) I wish you a great weekend and I wish you happy editing. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Understood, many thx.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Rocknrollmancer - You bet. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I saw you deleted this user. She is a new user that just joined yesterday under the Wikimedia Igbo User Group. As a new user, she is yet to understand how Wikipedia works. In this regard, I left a welcome message on her talk for her to go through. I think instead of deleting, new users should be guided. I experienced this too when I initially joined and never attempted untill 2020. Kindly reconsider as the new user doesn't really understand what is happening. Thank you Olugold (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Olugold! Sure, I have no problem with that at all - Done. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah thank you for responding swiftly. Olugold (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Olugold - You bet. ;-) Thank you for choosing to reach out to the user and work with them in order to help them learn and grow. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Back in Sept apparently. Did you know? Was watching Popo Medic do a RATING JEREMY DEWITTE MEMES, you know, as I do, and I learn in passing: he took a plea, got 18 months, MetroState also shut down forever as part of the plea. You can really feel the love from the headline used by this Orlando ABC affiliate: "Registered sex offender accused of impersonating officer sentenced to 18 months in prison." 0of! Looks like Sgt! got the last laugh. End of an era (of stupid). El_C 03:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

El C - Dang! I figured that something would inevitably happen to him by now. I honestly think that his sentence is much too light. He demonstrated a severe level of blatant disregard for the safety of others with his speeding and weaving through traffic, and for such a long period of time... He also demonstrated a long-term blatant disregard for the general order of society, police, and others. He used his... "funeral escort business" as an opportunity to buy a motorcycle with lights (even if orange and purple as opposed to red and blue) and a siren that make it visually and audibly similar as a motorcycle operated by a police officer, and he interfered with traffic and commute by conducting traffic-level police activities (such as stopping, directing, and controlling traffic). I haven't even mentioned his attempt to scold and imply control over other people by yelling at them and berating them for not following his "directions", or for not behaving in the same manner one would be lawfully required to do for an officer (such as pull out of the way and make clear when an emergency vehicle is approaching you and with lights and siren engaged, etc). People that need that kind of authority or power in order to gain self-worth or self-standing over others like that will definitely try and find another way to do so; we definitely haven't seen that last of this guy... I just wonder how he'll weasel himself into an unofficial level or position of "power" the next time he finds a way to do so...... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing him being a living meme might have been decisive. I think the prosecution may not have liked that. Ordinarily, they might not mind a spectacle, but I think they may have felt that a meme-driven spectacle would have made them look foolish (if by proximity alone). So they offered Jeremy (who I'm guessing was running out of lawyers funds at this point anyway) a sweet ass deal. Instead of likely long years in prison, do a bit over a year (110 days time served). Still, even without a 'certified-by-the-state' company and any other non-made up affiliation (weaseling his way into some sort of auxiliary org, which his meme status would make difficult to do), indeed, he might still just end up making himself a plastic badge to waive around. His compulsion to play cop (the power trip) may well be too great for him to be able to resist. And this time, they will throw the book at him, which really would be the end of it (at least for a very long while). El_C 10:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

El C - HAHAHAHAHA!!!!..... "It's... plastic..." Oh god such a delusional idiot. Really? Hi there, officially trained and on-duty public official for the Sheriff's Office... Here's my toy badge that I probably picked up online on ebay or at a toy store (rest in peace, Toys "R" Us). What a bone-headed idiot. I don't like calling other people bad names, but seriously? WOW! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, that guy was a real cop, but he got fired after like 2 months on the job (I forget for what, but I do remember it was stupid), then before handing his real badge back, he scanned it to make a Plastic Fantastic one! El_C 04:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh now I'm remembering. He worked for the jail, which made him a Sheriff's Office employee, but without police powers. So apparently, he went to a camp site to play pretend cop, faux citing people for alcohol violations. But actual police officers noticed it and were, like, WTF? Hilarities ensued. BTW, his following resignation letter to the Sheriff is truly a sight to behold. When I have time, I'll vid-timestamp it. Anyway, as I was saying, it was stupid. El_C 04:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Oshwah Did You Enjoy The 2021 NFL Regular season that was a great season and it was fun. Are You Looking forward to the 2021-22 NFL Playoffs and the big game Super Bowl LVI on NBC Next month. it's going to be great. 98.186.54.177 (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! Ehh... yes and no, mainly because the Seattle Seahawks didn't make it to the post-season (GO HAWKS!), but hey - I think they would've been demolished if they had. It was a good season overall though. A record-breaking field goal, TWO on-side kick recoveries, lots of amazing plays... I can't say that it sucked. Maybe a little. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

In March 2018 I made a change to Mary Rosenbloom's page. The article erroneously listed where she grew up. I happen to graduate with her from high school and knew her quite well. I edited the town where she grew up to correctly reflect "Allison Park, PA". The changes seemed to remain and I thought all was well.

I just checked the bell messages. I didn't know my changes were reverted by you. However, my changes yet remain.

It was not a test edit. It was a truthful purposeful edit.

What did I do wrong? Why are my changes still on the page?

kcrawf

Kcrawf (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kcrawf! Welcome back to Wikipedia! So, we need to talk about the Wikipedia policy on original research, which is not allowed here. If you take a look at the edits you made here and here to the Mary Rosenblum article, as well as your message that you left above - it's clear that your evidence is based on original research. To summarize, original research is where you "cite yourself" as the reference, saying that your personal experience, relationships, or even published articles or research is what is being used to support your edits. We cannot use or prove original research, so it cannot be used to reference articles on Wikipedia. To explain it in a simple manner: If I said that Barrack Obama attended my college and told me that Peanut Butter is his favorite food, how can anyone prove this? Well, they can't. "Well I cite my personal handshake with him." That means nothing. This information cannot be verified, nor supported by reliable sources that are secondary and independent of the article subject. This requirement for all articles across Wikipedia is a founding principle, and why we do not allow original research. Please take some time to review the policies and guidelines I've listed for you here. If you have any questions about them, please let me know and I'll be more than happy to answer them and help you. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Oshwah, was it intentional that you removed your replies to this question and the above question about American football? It looks like you may have accidentally edited from an old version of the page. (If it was intentional, please feel free to remove this comment.) —2d37 (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@2d37 — After replying to me on thread “Wow.”, he might have unintentionally removed his replies. I saw that his reply removed 2,816 bytes, and I was like, what? But, who knows. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 00:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

2d37 - Nope! Not sure how that happened... Lovely. I'll fix and restore. Thanks for letting me know! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

2d37 - Alright, should be fixed now. If I missed something, hit me up. Thanks again for the heads up. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Forgot to ping 3PPYB6. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I helped? El_C 12:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s okay, @Oshwah — I was only meaning to give to 2d37 some information. Thanks anyway. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning-up the history and applying protection to 'WP:10,000 most common passwords' (here: Special:Diff/1066585629).   CiaPan (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi CiaPan! No problem - always happy to help. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you do it for me? The edit filter triggered it, despite the edit summary. 207.81.187.41 (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will not. Jimbo (and any other account) can have their userpage set up the way that they wish (within reason, of course). In our culture and norms, it's generally not acceptable to make edits to another user's user page - even if it's just adding wiki links (like what you were trying to do). Let it be, and focus your effort on trying to make these improvements to articles instead. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

As you know, NASCARFan0548 was blocked for something fairly serious. I had suspected that he was up to no good earlier, but I didn't say anything per WP:AGF. In 2018, an account created a stub on a driver that looked identical to the ones that NASCARFan0548 created. It was a small account with a few edits. The account then created a G3 page and never edited again. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find the article in question. However, I do know that both the mysterious account and NASCARFan0548 edited the same page. The disruption that lead to his most recent block may have been going on for years, so I would be very cautious about unblocking. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This information was presented to me a little while back, but I don't have any detail on it either (and I have looked). What I can say is that NASCARfan0548 has been doing some disruption, on and off, for a couple of years previous (2018 is a plausible early date). Assuming other things check out, I'm taking the view that they may have evolved to stop any disruption over time. Needless to say, if they're unblocked, they are on very thin ice from this point onwards. Anyway, I'm always interested to hear what Oshwah (and anyone else) might have to say about it, and if necessary answer any questions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I just received an email from him. He denies ever editing Wikipedia before 2018. I am not saying I am certain the suspicious account was his. I am just saying that I suspected a CU block was coming well before it actually happened. I am terribly sorry if I made an incorrect accusation. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Zzuuzz and Scorpions13256! Please forgive me; I'm not sure how this discussion managed to fall through the cracks and sit so long without a response from me here! My apologies for that!

Before this discussion started (I don't remember exactly when), NASCARfan0548 got in touch with me on IRC asking how they can return to Wikipedia and appeal their block. It was then where I presented the user with the standard offer. I told the user to wait at least six months from the date that they were blocked, and to behave 100% properly during that time - no sockpuppetry, no block evasion, no misbehavior! "Keep your behavior and your record absolutely squeaky clean!" is what I said to NASCARfan0548.

Since this discussion, the user did return to me privately on IRC, and we discussed next steps in regards to appealing their block (six months had now passed). I gave NASCARfan0548 some input and advice on how to create a well-thought-out and sincerely-worded appeal in their unblock request, and (after receiving permission from NASCARfan0548) disclosed this discussion underneath their "first draft" unblock request (archived discussion, diff, permalink) - which, at the time, was very poor, lacked a show of any thought or effort, and was only about one or two sentences long. This, of course (as I worded in bold lettering), was not meant to "endorse" any kind of action one way or another, but was simply added because I felt that the community should know that I was coaching NASCARfan0548 and that they'd probably need a bit more time to improve their unblock appeal statement before being reviewed and acted upon.

Anyways, after looking through NASCARfan0548's block log, I see that Zzuuzz has since accepted the user's standard offer request and has unblocked NASCARfan0548. I'm glad that they're back, and I do really hope that NASCARfan0548 has learned from this and that we don't see any more issues from them moving forward. However, I absolutely agree with Zzuuzz's statement above - "they are on very thin ice from this point onwards." Yup, I'm on board with that one, no question about it. However, to be fair, I can understand if NASCARfan0548 runs into a content dispute, an edit warring violation, or a slip-up down the road that doesn't relate in any way to what led to their indefinite block and appeal. I don't think that they should be on extremely thin ice about everything that could happen. I will say this, however:

If credible and well-gathered evidence is presented down the line that either proves, demonstrates a high likelihood, or is confirmed by a Checkuser that NASCARfan0548 has, since their successful appeal, intentionally edited while logged out and through IP addresses, has engaged in any kind of abuse of multiple accounts, or has edited using any other methods in order to purposefully and intentionally evade scrutiny, edit deceptively, avoid sanctions, create an illusion that "more than one user" exists or an "illusion of support", or any other kind of abuse of the project, NASCARfan0548 will be indefinitely blocked, and with their last chance having been used up.

I hope that doesn't happen, but I wanted to state the above in order to be fair, be clear, and (of course) agree with Zzuuzz. :-) Again, sorry for such a late reply here! I can't believe that I let this discussion slip through my radar and go so long without any kind of response from me! Anyways, a big "thanks" to you both, and I hope you both have a great week! Happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts Oshwah, which I agree with, especially the everything part. The unblock request may have looked a little thin for a standard offer to some people, but as you indicate, this is not a usual case of subtly adjusting some problematic behaviour - it's more of a binary do or don't. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah:, thanks for your kind message! Message sent from my alternate account, NASCARfan0548 (alt) ↗ 16:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I agree wholeheartedly with you that softblocks are more appropriate than hardblocks if the user hasn't attempted to advertise on enwiki. Where we differ is that I don't believe that any block is appropriate if the user hasn't edited, or attempted to edit enwiki - i.e. nothing appears in Special:Contributions/MeGa Marketing, Special:DeletedContributions/MeGa Marketing, or the filter log.

MeGa Marketing made no attempt to edit enwiki. Their account only appears here because of the unified login system. The only expression of them on enwiki was created by the block notice. This caused a German user, whose name is quite legitimate on the German wiki and on Commons, and who has only edited the German wiki & Commons, to feel obliged to request a username change.

Let us suppose Cabayi or Oshwah meant something blockable in another language group, a group large enough to have a number of wikis. Further, that admins on 2 or more wikis in that language group took your stance and blocked us. We'd then be fair game for a global lock and thus blocked from enwiki for no fault here.

I'd also note that there are 325 language wikis and that Googlr Translate only caters for 108 languages. Even with the best will, we don't have a perfect understanding of what's going on with all of them.

Until the user has edited this wiki we have no business enforcing this wiki's standards on their global username. I'd make an exception if the username contained racial slurs or obscenities which were targeted at an English speaking audience, but corporate usernames have a legitimate use on other wikis (no matter how much I dislike that fact) and we owe those other wikis some mutual respect WP:AGF.

Perhaps we need an RfC to establish the boundary of enwiki's policy reach? Cabayi (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Cabayi! Sorry for such a late reply! Work has been busy, life has been busy, I've... well... been busy (lol). Damn, you do bring up good points in your arguments here. Gosh, I'm on the fence, to be honest. I feel that soft blocking corporate usernames does send a message for the users that plan to advertise here that this is not acceptable, and it gives the user a chance to rename their account, brush up on our policies, and they can edit here. In my experience, a good majority of users who create corporate accounts on the English Wikipedia will either advertise, promote, or edit article subjects where they have an obvious COI just based on their username.

We really ran into an edge case here. It was a global account created on another wiki, and the block here made the user want to change their name globally, and it sounds like they didn't even plan to touch the English Wikipedia at all. This is, of course, not the message I want to send to them. If corporate usernames are acceptable on other wiki projects, and if they create their account there, then... of course... of course... I don't want to perform an action that is unnecessary and results in the user feeling like they've done something wrong when they haven't. Of course.

Here's what I'm going to do: My edit filter (#54) is the place I go through in order to identify accounts that are likely violating Wikpdedia's username policy as being accounts that contain key words that flag them as likely representing a company, organization, club, etc instead of representing an individual user. Right now, it does not take into account exactly which project the account was created on. What I'd like to do is put in some code in order to modify the filter to only flag users that create a corporate account on this project, and ignore account creations that originated elsewhere. It shouldn't be hard to do; I just need to find the code to do so. I think this will resolve the matter; it will assure that we're enforcing our policies, but not interfere if the account was created else where. I know that stating this publicly here might give some people ideas, but I think that this will be a good start.

I'm completely open for an RFC if you do not believe that this is an appropriate compromise to both enforce our local policies, but allow accounts created elsewhere to remain. If it comes down to that, I'd be genuinely curious and open to hear what the community thinks regarding how to handle this situation. If you do open one, let me know. We're obviously not holding our fists up toward one another (lol); we just want to do what is best for the project - and I totally am on board with that, any day, any time. :-) I'm sure you know me well; I'm all about giving the benefit of the doubt to users - I do it all the time in other situations when other administrators just walk away. What are you thoughts on this idea? Would modifying my edit filter to flag only accounts that are created here locally and soft block those be okay? I'd love to get your input.

Thanks again for messaging me, telling me how you feel, bringing this edge case to my attention, and for working with me to resolve the matter and make sure that what I am doing is the right thing to do. Above all else, that is what is most important to me. Actions we take as administrators can be rough, harsh, easy, hard, and even disheartening at times; what matters is - is it the right thing to do? Asking that question to myself has helped me to make good decisions and (hopefully) make this project a safe, accurate, and fun place to be part of. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Cabayi - Update: I have implemented the necessary code on edit filter #54 so that it now flags accounts that match the conditions set and only if they were created on this project. It will not flag automatic creations as a result of the account being created on another project. I just wanted to follow-up with the response I made to you above, and let you know that I've performed the changes I discussed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been a bit slow thinking this through. My apologies for that.

Many users will be logged but not at fault because they either

- create an account and never edit (presumably for the benefit of maintaining a watchlist, or setting display preferences); OR

- create an account on enwiki (because it's the best known) and then go on to edit another language wiki without ever editing enwiki; OR

- create an account purely to protect their reddit/twitter/facebook name from cybersquatters.

So long as the filter is just logging the username for manual intervention, and the readers of the log are aware of the rules, it doesn't matter on which wiki the account is created. It's only by editing this wiki that users become bound by our rules. Cabayi (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Cabayi! No worries; it's not like we have any kind of "due date" or deadline that we have to meet or anything. ;-) Take all the time you need to respond; I'm obviously not in any kind of a hurry or rush (and even if I was... why? lol). No; the edit filter is not set to intervene interfere with anything that it matches or flags. Its purpose is only to log events for human review. I go through these logs regularly, and I determine which logged usernames are blatantly promotional and should be soft-blocked. Yesterday, I modified the edit filter's code so that it will only flag matches if the account was created on this project. I know that we're still working toward what the right path of action is in these situations (Should we pre-emptively soft block? Should we not? RfC? What do?); that discussion aside, I can at least say that it's now much less likely that an issue (such as the one that brought this discussion into fruition) will occur again as compared to the likelihood before the change was implemented. Even a small move in the right direction is still a move in the right direction. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Celestina007 (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Celestina007! I'm sorry for such a late reply. Life has been keeping me busy lately. Lots of work, lots of... yard work (yay... winter...), I've just been... busy. :-) I'll check my Wikipedia emails tomorrow and I'll get back to you... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Oshwah,

Thank you for getting back to me about the "original research" I had entered into Mary Rosenblum's page. I'm curious why the change remains. Did someone else make the change?

If finding her page was incomplete as I did what way or method could I correct the error? Not being educated in journalism how could I find the information in a proven form? Do I submit the info to someone at Wikipedia such as yourself to be verified? That seems like a major burden to place on Wikipedia.

How shall I approach this in the future?

An aside: The day I was reading her article I happened to notice her birth date, normal, but passing date was the day before. The coincidence and realizing she was gone both shocked and dismayed me. I was stunned. Very sad. She was a lovely person

kcrawf

Kcrawf (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kcrawf! Great questions! I'm not sure why the changes remain; feel free to remove those. :-) What you just need to do is cite reliable sources with your edits. Verifiability is important on an encyclopedia, and when you can point to a source that's reliable, secondary, and independent of the article subject (meaning that it's not from "their website" or "written by them"), then you'll be all set. For tips on how to make a citation that looks good, see this page. There's a template you can use that makes it super easy. Other than that, do some research, find sources that prove and support the changes you're making, and you'll have no problems at all. :-) Read through those pages that I linked you to, and if you have any questions about them, let me know - I'll be more than happy to answer them and help you out. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Oshwah, I've noticed you edited my amendment on the Crowded House 'Better Be Home Soon' entry (where I included the video production house & director for the video clip), asking for a citation. Well, I don't exactly know what kind of citation you need, but I was one of the Producers of Meaningful Eye Contact - the company that made the clip back in the late '80s. The clip was directed by Alex Proyas, art-directed by myself and was edited by Keir McFarlane. The client was Capitol Records. The clip was shot in the now-demolished WD & HO Wills tobacco factory in Kensington, Sydney, Australia. Since music clips tended not to have credits, it's pretty hard for me to give you an exact source, other than myself (and the internet is not very friendly in this respect).

Also - and this is not a barb, but a genuine question - isn't it more usual to annotate with 'citation needed' rather than just remove a content update entirely? I've seen some outrageous content let slide with just a 'citation needed' marker...

Reverendanaglyph (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Reverendanaglyph — In that case, you may appear to have a conflict of interest. Please note that this kind of editing is strongly discouraged. You might want to insert {{UserboxCOI}} on your user page, and read the basic guideline to COI editing. Thank you. Also, per WP:NOR, original research is discouraged. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverendanaglyph - See the response above by 3PPYB6, who explains the situation well. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, well I understand and I apologise if that is considered COI. It does seem to me, though, that in a situation like this, where I know pertinent information that is not documented elsewhere, there should be some method of adding that information. I'm not doing it for any personal gain - this is 35 year old history for me and hardly germane in my life. I could easily get around the COI restriction by just making a page on my website that states that same information, and then getting someone else to update the Wikipedia entry with a citation link to that page. But you see how that's nuts, right? Reverendanaglyph (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Reverendanaglyph - No problem! I completely understand how you feel. However, original research is not how an Encyclopedia is written. Instead, an encyclopedia must base its content and information off reliable sources that are secondary and independent of the article subject. This gives the highest assurance possible to readers that the information published is accurate. Even more importantly, citing reliable sources allows for our readers to review and scrutinize such information, and look to these sources in order to verify the content written. I understand that you have a lot of personal experience in this area, but not all is lost! Are you able to locate reliable sources that support the information you're trying to add? If so, then awesome! Cite those references in-line with what you're adding, and you'll be all set! Easy peasy! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi again, ~Oshwah~ - well, as I said, to my knowledge there are no existing sources for this information - it is not, as far as I know, documented elsewhere (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion). I'd have to create such sources. And then get someone who is not me to link to them. You do see the ridiculous spiral of insanity inherent in that, right? Right? (Trust me - I'm SO tempted, if only to be able to tell this story). Reverendanaglyph (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Oshwah — As Redactyll did back in October, I’ve updated your userpage. Since that date, you’ve dropped to #42. Hopefully, you don’t mind what I did. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 22:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

3PPYB6 - Aww, man! Darn it! I'm #42 now? Noooooo....!!!! Looks like I need to get to work on here and pump up my edit count. :-P To answer your question, I don't care - you can edit my user page do whatever you want. Doesn't bother me. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah — Within limits, of course. :P Well, yeah, pump up your edit count, take on Ser Amantio di Nicolao for all I care! :P — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 03:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

3PPYB6 - Someday, I will be #1.... :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah — No pressure, but you are now down to #43! Better hurry up if you want to catch up! — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 01:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

3PPYB6 - Well, crap... I guess this is what comes of being an adult, and having a (more than) full-time job comes with. But seriously, I need to step my shit up, right?!! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Really, you didn't know? see my talk for the name --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt - I read through that thread you linked me to. What happened? What's going on? I'm confused... Help me out here. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Osh, I'm pretty sure @Gerda Arendt: is talking about this edit [1] on RexxS's talk page. But I may be wrong, feel free to correct me Gerda. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 03:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The4lines - Correct; I figured that this is what Gerda Arendt was messaging me here in regards to. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

How far did you get, Oshwah, and when did you look? To make it short: an arbcom case was requested against him, and - instead of going and defending himself - he just left. The edit announcing that was on Hammersoft's talk, and much discussion, including that we tried to tell the filer to withdraw the request. It is in last years "archive" of that page, recommended reading, - he just links the years' discussions on top of his talk, - I trust that you'll find it. Hammersoft arrived at the ultimate guide to arbitration: Don't! (The arbcom case was then conducted in his absence, but he had decided to leave for better things before it began.) - I was a "party" of an arbcom case, and instead of leaving I said I'd stand and sing. a line from a hymn that Bach set to music, which was mentioned on Hammersoft's talk - and was TFA yesterday ;) - Next time I'm called to arbbom I'll also not participate, but so far, the singing has helped me greatly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt - Okay, that clears up my confusion - thanks for that. :-) It was late when I read through that discussion you pointed me to, and I think I was just confused because I felt like I was navigated right into the middle of (what looked to be) a larger discussion with no prior knowledge or context - no big deal. ;-) I saw that there was something about an arbcom case and RexxS, but I didn't look for it nor did I look into the issues or reasons leading up to it. I figured that, instead of utilizing a bunch of time to dig deeper into what was going on, I'd just respond to you here and ask for a TL;DR. ;-)

That sucks that RexxS is no longer here. I understand that life can (and usually will) point you toward newer and better opportunities and "greener pastures". Over the time of one's life, interests can change, hobbies can change, "life" can change, and hence people will naturally retire from here and move on for those various reasons. I of course respect their decision, and I'm always extremely grateful for their service to this project. It also feels good to know that these contributors are (usually) choosing to retire or leave and while under good and happy terms and circumstances with the project and the community, and I wish them well. Naturally, on the other hand, it's of course disappointing and quite a major bummer when I see contributors leave the project while they are "under a cloud", or under questionable or unfavorable circumstances with the community, or due to impending or active sanctions or other negative remedies or consequences. Of course, many (if not the vast majority) of these users get into these situations themselves, and after many opportunities were given to them to be made aware of the issues or disruption. Had they just paused what they are doing, discussed the issues or disputes peacefully, and followed relevant policies, guidelines, or consensus - most users would be in the clear. However, as we both know and have seen countless times, this doesn't always happen.

Regardless of the circumstances or the reasons that drove RexxS to retirement, I still miss the guy! Like I've said before: Just because a user is sanctioned or banned from a topic, article, subject, etc doesn't mean that they should be assumed to be disruptive in the areas that don't involve the same areas that their sanction applies to. If RexxS left under duress, frustration, anger, or another negative feeling, I hope that they'll give it some time, move on from things emotionally, and that they may someday return. That's, of course, completely up to them, though. It's crazy... in the (now) 15 years that I've been a contributor to this project, I've seen many awful, bad, satisfactory, okay, good, great, and awesome contributors come and go. Oh well... I guess that just comes with the curse of having such a long tenure here. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I have seen people come and go. I have seen arbcom case requests. That one was petty and should not have been requested. Once requested it should have been withdrawn. Not withdrawn it should not have been accepted. If not sooner then because SlimVirgin pleaded, - I asked the candidates about that. It's sad enough that people die. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree with Gerda about the RexxS case request. She puts it well. This recent development might interest you, Oshwah, and you too, Gerda. Possibly also this old discussion, fallout from the RexxS case; though that one may be confusing (and long) without more context. Bishonen | tålk 07:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC).

Thank you Bish, - I read the first and commented, and in the second, see many friends say what I thought. - Once we are together, do you know what I think about the "infobox wars"? That they are a myth, perhaps always were. We have an essay by RexxS and guidance by Brianboulton, - what else do we need? Certainly not DS, if you ask me, - a few admins willing to watch over the few remaining discussion would be enough. - I predicted about the RexxS arbcase that it wouldn't promote kindness nor a single article, and the same goes for the other waste of time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I took the pic in 2009, and it was on the German MP yesterday, with the song from 1885, in English Prayer for Ukraine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey dude, nice hair! 8.48.253.42 (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, man! It took me about... 2+ years to get it to that length, I believe? I've cut it since. It's goofy and funny to have, and I received a lot of awesome compliments and feedback about it, co-workers encouraging me to keep growing it out. The unfortunate sad part? Not professional looking. I can't walk into an interview with that kind of hair and expect to be taken seriously. Sucks, but that's how life is... Plus, it really got annoying to have to keep it untangled... lol ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)